Treating this topic more seriously than other posters, a lot of people forget what they don't need to know or at least what they think they don't need to know once they leave school. I consider myself a well-educated person who knows a lot but I forgot a lot of the algebra, trigonometry, and pre-calculus that I studied in high school and college. My grasp of a lot of scientific facts is probably more shaky than it should be. I wouldn't panic at a joke like this but there are probably things about chemistry and physics that I should know, that I knew at one point but forgot. It wasn't intentional, its just that I never needed to apply this knowledge to life and somehow forgot it. Its worse with people who hated school.

When do we get the results from last week's bar fight?

The getting fed isn't really true. A lot of plantations in the Americas were notoriously bad about feeding slaves. The plantation owners thought having to feed the slaves was a bother. Thats why so many of them gave slaves land and time to garden, so the slaves could feed themselves hopefully.

Lawyers, Guns, and Money could use a wider divergence of opinion. Its pretty much divided between Liberals, people further Left, and trolls.

To me, the argument that reforms might hurt some people is an insufficient reason for not passing the reforms. If the majority of people whose reforms are designed to help get that help than the reforms should be passed.

I think its also important that the workers themselves were often at the forefront of pressing for reforms in sweat shops. In the aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the young immigrant women from Italy and Eastern Europe employed in said sweat shops were the ones that strated protesting against them. These women should have been theoretically grateful for their sweatshop jobs for the reasons presented above but nearly all of them seemed to have wanted better working conditions, shorter hours, and more pay enough to protest. So I think the desirabiltiy of sweatshop labor is debatable.

Mazal tov.

Except the unionization and radicalization tend to follow very shortly after the appearance of sweet shops rather than waiting for several years. The immediacy of reform
attempts suggest that sweatshop jobs are not that desired once they are achieved.

I comment there.

I say that this is bull. When the developed world was going through its sweatshop phase, there were plenty of people concerned with the conditions in the sweatshops. These included workers, middle class reformes, socialists and anarchists, conservatives concerned about revolution and a host of others. It is not a sign of privilege to be concerned about sweatshops because people have always been concerned.

This. Movements to reform or abolish sweatshop conditions appeared pretty much right after sweatshops. It took two or three generations to implement these reforms but they existed. This suggests that sweatshop jobs were not all that desired or at least that plenty of people, both workers and non-workers, found them morally problematic.

The only place that I know of where there was active resistance to reforming sweatshops from the workers themselves were the mills in the American south and that's because Of the use of race to prevent class-consciousness. The Southern miners in West Virginia and Kentucky were rather militant in their advocacy for worker's rights and better conditions. These were Mother Jones people.

If sweatshop jobs are desirable than how come so many sweatshop workers attempted to organize fast?

Yes, the first of the two readings is a close appromixmation but I'm not sure what roll economic populism plays into education for the liberal elite. Economic populism was independent of education the proleteriate into liberal social mores for the most part and the education continues despite a relative decline in economic populism.

I don't think this is what Jason is saying. Lets ignore the current battles over homosexuality and go back to the battles for Civil Rights for African-Americans and other non-whites during the period after WWII. There was a lot of hostility among White Americans towards the Civil Rights movement but among the elites of both parties, a recognition that its time has come. Some of the elites genuinely believed in Civil Rights and others thought that the racism towards African-Americans and other people of color was giving the USSR an edge in Cold War in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and this was bad so civil rights had to be implemented. Regardless of their reasoning, their was something of consenus that racism could not have a place in post-WWII America among much of the political elite.

Liberal elites and conservatives elites approached the hostility of whites towards Civil Rights differently. Liberal elites tried various means to get whites to see African-Americans and other people of color as follow Americans deserving civil rights in addition to passing legislation and engaging in activism. It started with the Gentleman's Agreement, which argued against the casual gentle Jew-hatred that affected a lot of White Protestant society and moved on to most movies starring Sydney Poitier, whose point was depict Black men as outstanding people rather than menaces. The entire point was to show White Christians that Jews, African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians were humans to. Conservative elites went along with civil rights legislation but did not try to teach conservative proles in the way that liberal elites did. They used the racism of their proles as a means to win election albeit in an indirect fashion, the Southern Strategy, while not pushing back against Civil Rights with full force and quietly supporting it in their own fashion.

Its the same thing with homosexualtiy now. As late as the Clintion Administration, there was widespread hostility towards LBGT people among the proles of both parties. Liberal elites have attempted to humanize the LBGT community to their proles in a similar way that they did during the Civil Rights period with non-Whites. Conservative elites mainly indulged their proles.

I'm not so much as saying that conservatives proles as uneducatable as they won't like the education that they are going to get. Lets be a socially moderate or neutral, right-wing economically party is not a winning political message. It has nothing for the conservative proles whose votes are needed to win election. That means that conservatives elites have to give into what the conservatives proles want on social issues in order to get what they want on economic issues. Its give and take.

Why do Evangelicals fret about the rules about sex so much? Even the Ultra-Orthodox Jews fret about sex rules of the Torah less. Their attitude is that your supposed to obey them but breaking one of the sex rules isn't treated with the level of ultra-seriousness that Evangelicals do for the most part.

Except that there is no evidence besides Christian writings that the Pharisees were hypocrites. The Talmud presents them as men of honor and integrity. Mostly likely some were hypocrites and others people of honor and integrity. The Gospels were written when the Nazarenes and Pharisees were fighting for the souls of the Jewish people after the failure of the First Jewish Revolt. The writers of the Gospels had vested interests in presenting the Pharisees in a bad light just as the writers of the Mishnah and Gamara had interests in the other direction.

Can you please not use Pharisee as an insult? This is a very big pet peeve of mine because the original Pharisees were not bad people. They were intellectuals and scholars debating what the Torah really meant as opposed to the more elite Sadducee faction.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

This doesn't mean anything. Eastern European aristocracy hired bands composed either of Jews or Roma to play at their weddings and parties before modernity destroyed them and they absolutely hated Jews and Roma. Same goes with whites hiring African-American or Latino musicians.

Ah, I get what you're saying now. It makes sense for media and think tanks to choose NYC, California, or DC as places for headquarters though. They may not like it but thats where they can have the most influence and get the most access to important things.

Do the elite of the right mainly live in California, New York, or DC. There lots of rich conservatives in Texas and other red states and these conservative rich people certainly seem like true believers. Now you could argue that most of these rich conservatives are still proles because of the role they play in the party but they have a lot of voice for proles.

Words have meaning. The level of participation of Arabs in Israel life is above and beyond that of Afticans in apartheid or African-Americans during Jim Crow. Omar Bargouti, the head of the BDS movement was educated at the University of Tel Aviv. Many other Palestinians have also been educated at Israeli institutions.

I have no idea what you want. You seem to think that if Israel did not declare independence in 1948, Palestine would have evolved into a multicultural democracy. There is no evidence for this. You focus on all the bad in Israel as you see it, ignore the good and all the problems in Arab countries.

Yes but these response typically comes up more with Jews and Israel rather than anything else. The anti-Zionists ignore the perilous state of Jews in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa including the fact that we narrowly avoided Holocaust II within a decade of the Holocaust because Stalin luckily died. The Doctor's Plot was supposed to be the first step in the a campaign to put all Soviet Jews in slave labor camps in the Russian Far East, that is to kill them. They also somehow thing that the Middle East would have ended up as a bunch of cosmopolitan, multi-cultural democracies if Israel did not exist despite all evidence to the contrary.

I think the answer is unfortunately the latter. If you want to find another expression, they want to find ways for the currently wealthy to stay wealthy while preventing other people from joining the club.

Ah, this is the classic response "Jews of all people should know". Nobody would say this to any other disadvantaged group unless that person was a racist. They would tell African-Americans not to feel anger at White Americans for the persecution they endured. They wouldn't tell LBGT people to endure the norms imposed on them by heterosexuals. Jews of all the persecuted groups are expected just to endure and bear whatever beatings we get. We are to be victims and nothing else.

You know people keep calling Israel an apartheid state but they keep ignoring all the Israeli-Palestinians, to use the term of the moment, in Israeli universities, that hold elected and appointed officials through out the Israeli government, and who serve in the IDF. An Israeli-Palestinian judge provided over the trial of the Jewish President for rape. How many white officials were convicted by black judges in South Africa during Apartheid? Meanwhile, Jews were expelled from the surrounding countries wholesale and the vast and vicious Jew-hatred in the Muslim world is completely ignored at best or at worst justified?

Do you really think that the Jews of the Middle East would have be peacefully incorporated into the polity of the Middle East and North Africa without Israel? Are you really that naive? The surrounding states are absolutely horrible with their minorities. Iraq and Turkey persecuted the Kurds. Egypt is trying to rid itself of its Christians. The least said about the LBGT community the better. Israel is a beacon of minority rights compared to any of the surrouding countries.

Without Israel, the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa would be another community for the majority to persecute and for dictators to use as a distraction. Without Israel, the same fate would fall to the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. I suspect that you would find an excuse.